sifubs said
Is there any historical evidence of Jesus’ existence?
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
I see War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy is an example of historical fiction.
Sifubs, is there any historical evidence that the French invaded Russia during the Napoleonic era?
Google, Did Napoleon invade Russia?
Answer/result from National Geographic dot org
June 24, 1812 – Napoleon invades Russia
On June 24, 1812, the Grande Armée, led by French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, crossed the Neman River, invading Russia from present-day Poland. … The Russian army refused to engage with Napoleon’s Grande Armée of more than 500,000 European troops. They simply retreated into the Russian interior.
= = =
Categorically, yes, there is historical evidence of the existence of persons, places, and time in historical fiction literature.
Was the Biblical Jesus one unique, biological man conceived by a man and a woman?
The Bible says no.
= = =
The Biblical Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction. All churches tell you Jesus is established by faith. Scholars tell you the Gospels are not 100% accurate History.
Are you hoping to maintain something about Jesus that isn’t there?
= = =
The first century Jewish historian calls the basic facts (found in the Testimonium Flavianum) about the Biblical Jesus a sad calamity. He gives us the basics facts and ends those facts with the phrase, “And another sad calamity …”
Two passages follow the Testimonium Flavianum: 1) the sad calamity of a gullible religious woman being duped followed by another passage of a gullible religious woman being duped. That is what Josephus wrote about Jesus and Paul.
sifubs said
Is there any historical evidence of Jesus’ existence?
We have literary evidence which is what we have for the vast majority of folks we know of in the ancient world. Either we have their own writings (like Paul) or writings about them by others (like Jesus).
Welcome sifubs!
Steefen said
sifubs said
Is there any historical evidence of Jesus’ existence?
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
I see War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy is an example of historical fiction.
Sifubs, is there any historical evidence that the French invaded Russia during the Napoleonic era?
Google, Did Napoleon invade Russia?
Answer/result from National Geographic dot org
June 24, 1812 – Napoleon invades Russia
On June 24, 1812, the Grande Armée, led by French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, crossed the Neman River, invading Russia from present-day Poland. … The Russian army refused to engage with Napoleon’s Grande Armée of more than 500,000 European troops. They simply retreated into the Russian interior.
= = =
Categorically, yes, there is historical evidence of the existence of persons, places, and time in historical fiction literature.
What is this rubbish compilation of random tangents? No one was asking this.
sifubs said
Is there any historical evidence of Jesus’ existence?
Yes, but it is specifically literary evidence in nature. I will also just add as a general rule on this forum, don’t bother listening or entertaining Steefen. His book is self published, and he touts it like it is some kind of achievement, and pretends like he is some kind of expert.
As for the evidence for Jesus, our best evidence is the Pauline epistles. Mythicists like to claim Paul just go all his info from revelation, but this is not his claim. He claims he received his “gospel” from revelation, but gospel =/= biographical information of Jesus. In context, Gal. 1:11-12 (which is the basis for mythicist claims) is about the gospel he preaches to the Galatians regarding various doctrines and theologies, such as his conception of the circumcision. It does not have to do with Jesus’ biography. Just a few verses later, Paul claims to have met James and Peter, and that he “got to know” Peter (Gal. 1:18-19), which presumably would indicate he knew of Jesus’ life as Peter recorded it. He further calls James the “brother of the Lord”, a phrase only used in early literature for Jesus’ biological siblings (mythicists claim that 1 Cor. 9:5 where it says “brothers of the Lord” indicates some kind of rank or cultic group within early Christianity, but this is absurd and unneeded and unevidenced, given that early literature holds Jesus had multiple brothers, cf. Mark 6:3).
Paul also claims he was a descendant of David (Rom. 1:3), and that he was executed relatively recently (1 Thess. 2:14:-16). Mythicists claim 1 Thess 2:14-16 is an interpolation, but there is literally no evidence of this. Marcion has it, all the early Church Fathers have it, there is literally no manuscript evidence for interpolation, and numerous scholars have regularly shown that it fits in context and is not “antisemitic” as some scholars have claimed. mythicist arguments rely on outdated ideas from the 1970s from Pearson, and do not engage the more recent leading scholarship on these topics.
Paul likewise comments on Jesus’ personality, more on his lineage, and other stuff. So, within 15 years of death, we already have evidence that Jesus was a historical person, which is better than 99% of all ancient poor people.
Steefen said
Two passages follow the Testimonium Flavianum: 1) the sad calamity of a gullible religious woman being duped followed by another passage of a gullible religious woman being duped. That is what Josephus wrote about Jesus and Paul.
Josephus doesn’t ever mention Paul… and also this is just a rather insincere and inaccurate caricature of the following passages. The passage after the Testimonium Flavianum, is specifically how Ide (a woman) uses her influences and lies to, and bribery, to try and keep this one man alive (as he threatened suicide) by getting him to lodge with Paulina. Paulina won’t be bribed with wealth, and they specifically manipulate her religiosity. She isn’t a gullible woman being duped (glad you still think that stereotypical trope is a thing), but a religious person being manipulated by bribed authority. Gullible people have an inclination that something is wrong and believe despite that. The episode also specifically portrays an episode of how the law was used to seek justice for Paulina who had been preyed upon (and raped accordingly).
The passage after this one (the second passage after the Testimonium) is a monetary scam. Again, under the pretense of sending money to the Temple, they extracted money from Fulvia. Again, not gullible, since it was common to send money to the Temple for its usages.
This isn’t “gullible religious woman being duped.” One of these is a series of manipulative tactics taken out to rape a woman, and then another of exploiting common practice. Neither of which is any indication of gullibility. And frankly, it is rather demeaning and horrid to the women involved in these situations to think so… but then again, this seems to just be a residual sexist stereotype shrouded in antireligious sentiment… shrouded in misinformation, as Josephus never mentions Paul.
Stephen said
Don’t be so harsh, Chris. Steefen is able to spread his thoughts without rancor.
His thoughts in that comment are completely irrelevant. And most of the time they are strange, unqualified, tangents with no cohesiveness. I wouldn’t have anything negative to say at all, if he actually bothered to say something topical, relevant, and researched. I thought that was partially the point of the forum…
And frankly, newcomers need to be warned, because amateurs throwing their self-published books around and pretending to be experts (as he regularly does) are dangerous. That is how Ancient Aliens nonsense becomes a thing and continues to be a thing.
Chris_Hansen said
Stephen said
Don’t be so harsh, Chris. Steefen is able to spread his thoughts without rancor.
His thoughts in that comment are completely irrelevant. And most of the time they are strange, unqualified, tangents with no cohesiveness. I wouldn’t have anything negative to say at all, if he actually bothered to say something topical, relevant, and researched. I thought that was partially the point of the forum…
And frankly, newcomers need to be warned, because amateurs throwing their self-published books around and pretending to be experts (as he regularly does) are dangerous. That is how Ancient Aliens nonsense becomes a thing and continues to be a thing.
I’m not defending Steefen’s pronouncements. Merely pointing out that unless or until he becomes verbally abusive he will clearly be tolerated like the rest of us on this here forum. So you should probably ignore him the way he ignores us. If you want to take the time to push back, fine, but better to do so on specific points rather than characterizing everything he says as rubbish which doesn’t seem to me to be a very effective strategy if you’re worried about newbies. You run the risk of making him seem like the reasonable one.
Stephen said
Chris_Hansen said
Stephen said
Don’t be so harsh, Chris. Steefen is able to spread his thoughts without rancor.
His thoughts in that comment are completely irrelevant. And most of the time they are strange, unqualified, tangents with no cohesiveness. I wouldn’t have anything negative to say at all, if he actually bothered to say something topical, relevant, and researched. I thought that was partially the point of the forum…
And frankly, newcomers need to be warned, because amateurs throwing their self-published books around and pretending to be experts (as he regularly does) are dangerous. That is how Ancient Aliens nonsense becomes a thing and continues to be a thing.
I’m not defending Steefen’s pronouncements. Merely pointing out that unless or until he becomes verbally abusive he will clearly be tolerated like the rest of us on this here forum. So you should probably ignore him the way he ignores us. If you want to take the time to push back, fine, but better to do so on specific points rather than characterizing everything he says as rubbish which doesn’t seem to me to be a very effective strategy if you’re worried about newbies. You run the risk of making him seem like the reasonable one.
(A) he doesn’t ignore us… hence why this forum is littered with clutter he causes on a regular basis especially in historical Jesus section. Better just warn people up front that half the topics in this forum are going to be filled with this sort of stuff.
(B) Everything he said about Napoleon was off topic, and was also… rubbish. I did rebut to him above specifically pointing out that basically his entire characterization of Josephus and what Josephus described was inaccurate (and one part just outright false, as Josephus never says a word about Paul). I did push back on specific points. Me pointing out that he fakes his credentials, his book is self published, and his Josephus claims were just inaccurate and/or wrong are specific points, and all relevant given that he was advertising his book on this page… again.
(C) I didn’t say everything he said was rubbish. I said his Napoleon nonsense was off-topic rubbish, and his Josephus claims completely inaccurate. And I showed how. I said he touts a self-published book and fakes his own credentials by pretending to be an “expert” on numerous occasions, like calling himself an “argumentation specialist.” And frankly, people who pretend to be experts, and use a self-published book to boost fake credentials, are people who shouldn’t be trusted… case in point, we outright call out and distrust people like Kent Hovind for that *exact* reason. If a Christian apologist did this, he’d be deep roasted and we all know it. Not sure why Steefen gets a pass at faking credentials.
You may not be defending his misinformation… but you sure seem to be okay with him spreading it. Sorry, but I’ve been sold on frauds before, and I’m not going to play nice about it on a forum dedicated to helping educate people.
Robert said
Chris_Hansen said
… Not sure why Steefen gets a pass …
Steefen doesn’t get a pass but has been challenged innumerable times, and I actually think we might even be making some very slow progress.
Cool… still should warn newcomers. When that slow progress becomes ostensible change, then we can talk, imo.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert